Page 1

it is characterized by secrecy. Presence

before the magistrate is not a requirement.

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE MIDTERMS

REVIEWER
Prof. Ongkiko
Pamarans Book
By Paulyn Duman

Criminal
Procedure
Considerations

Preliminary

Criminal Procedure defined:

is concerned with the procedural steps

through which a criminal case passes,
commencing with the initial investigation of
a crime and concluding with the
unconditional release of the offender.
it is the procedural administration of
criminal justice
the method prescribed by law for the
apprehension and prosecution of persons
accused of any criminal offense and for
their punishment in case of conviction.

Sources our criminal procedure:

Rules of Court January 1, 1964

Revised by he Rules of Court Revision
Committee on November 22, 1984.
Then it was amended on Oct. 1, 1988.
Then on Oct. 3, 1000 in an en banc res it
was revised and it took effect on December
1, 2000.
Consti 1987 Bill of Rights
Various acts of the legislature BP 129
Presidential Decrees
Executive Orders
Decisions of the Supreme Court

3. Mixed system: it contemplates two

contending parties before the court, which
hears them impartially and renders
judgment only after trial.
- the preliminary examination conducted by
the judge before he issues the warrant of
arrest is an aspect of the inquisitorial
system
- the right to be present in any stage of the
proceedings and defend himself in person,
to be exempt from being a witness against
himself during the trial are the features of
the accusatorial system
Jurisdiction defined:
Juris and dico: I speak by the law

Criminal law
procedure:

2. Accusatorial System: requires all crimes to

be prosecuted by a public prosecutor
EXCEPT the so-called private offenses
which must be commenced by a complaint
of the offended party.
- the accused has the right to be present at
any stage of the proceedings and to be
heard personally or by counsel.
- Right to appeal is characteristic of this
system (although the judgment of the trial
court does not require imprimatur of the
court of the last resort before it may attain
finality).
- Essence there must be a moral certainty
of guilt to defeat the constitutional
presumption of innocence.

distinguished

from

criminal

the former is substantive the latter is

procedural. Former declares what acts are
punishable the latter declares how they are
to punished.

Systems of Criminal Procedure:

1. Inquisitorial System: wholly in the hands
of the prosecuting officer and the court and

power or the capacity given by the law to a

court or tribunal to entertain, hear and
determine certain controversies. It is the
authority to hear and determine a cause.
It is vested in the Court not in the judges.
The court has no jurisdiction to punish
contemptuous conduct committed against
another court.

Distinguished from Venue:

the particular country, or geographical area

in which a court with jurisdiction may hear
and determine a case

Venue deals with the locality, the place

where the suit may be had, while
jurisdiction treats of the power of the court
to decide the case on the merits.
Venue is procedural, jurisdiction is
substantive.
Civil cases: venue can be waived or be the
subject of an agreement
Criminal cases: venue cannot be so waived
or stipulated upon because it is an element
of jurisdiction.

Where jurisdiction attaches:

Page 2
2. having power or jurisdiction, may exercise it
wrongfully wrong and must be reversed
upon error
3. irregularly irregular and must be
corrected by motion.
Jurisdiction conferred by law:

Jurisdiction a matter of substantive law:

it must be made to appear that the law has

given the tribunal capacity to entertain the
complaint against the person or thing
sought to be charged or affected
that such complaint has actually been
preferred
and, that such person or thing has been
properly brought before the tribunal to
answer the charge therein contained.

Exercise of jurisdiction:
Jurisdiction should be distinguished from
the exercise thereof. The authority to decide
a case at all, and not the decision therein,
is what makes up jurisdiction. Where there
is jurisdiction over the person and subject
matter, the decision of all other questions
arising in the case is but an exercise of that
jurisdiction.
Jurisdiction does not depend either on the
irregularity of the exercise of such power or
on the correctness of the decision made, for
the power to decide wrongly as well as
rightly, subject to the qualification that a
court can render only such judgment as
does not transcend in extent or character
the law which is applicable to that class of
cases.
A court may:
1. Act without power or jurisdiction the act
of judgment of the court is wholly void

jurisdiction is conferred only by the

Constitution or the law.
The jurisdiction of the court is determined
by the law in force at the time of the
institution of the action.

creates, defines and regulates rights or

which regulates the rights and duties which
give rise to a cause of action is substantive
law, while that which prescribes the
methods of enforcing rights or obtains
redress for their invasion is remedial or
procedural.

Criminal jurisdiction:

power of the tribunal to hear and try a

particular
offense
and
impose
the
punishment for it.
It has no power to try and convict or acquit
a person for a crime committed within its
territory, unless a complaint or information
has been filed with said court.

Requisites of criminal jurisdiction:

1. the offense is one which the court is by law
authorized to take cognizance of
2. the offense must have been committed
within its territorial jurisdiction
3. the person charged with the offense must
have been brought to its presence for trial,
forcibly by warrant of arrest or upon his
voluntary submission to the court
The court may have jurisdiction over the
subject matter, over the territory, and over
the person of the accused.
Jurisdiction over the subject matter:

subject matter: means the power to hear

and determine cases of the general class to
which the proceedings in question belong
and is conferred by the sovereign authority
which organizes the court and defines its
powers.
It can be challenged at any stage of the
proceedings and for lack of it, a court can
dismiss a case ex mero motu (out of its own
accord).
The mere fact that after the trial and after
the court has heard the evidence, it was
found that the crime committed was lesser
than that described in the complaint, the
court CANNOT dismiss the case because
the action should have been brought in a
lower court. In other words, the courts
jurisdiction in the first instance is
determined by the facts alleged in the
complaint and not by the qualification of
the crime made in the title of the complaint,
or by the result of proof after trial.

Jurisdiction over the territory:

Venue in criminal cases is jurisdictional.
As regards territorial jurisdiction, criminal
action shall be instituted and tried in the
court of the municipality of province
wherein the offense was committed or
where any of its essential ingredients took
place.
The principle seeks to preclude harassment
of the defendant and to save him from the
inconvenience and expense of depending
himself somewhere else.
Jurisdiction over the person of the accused:

Taking into custody by the court of the

person of the accused in order that he may
be bound to answer for the commission of
the offense (Rule 113).

Jurisdiction over continuing crimes:

where any of the essential ingredients of the

offense took place
For it to exist: there should be plurality of
acts performed separately during a period
of time; unity of the penal of criminal intent
or purpose, which means that the two or
more violations of the same personal

Page 3
provision are united in one and the same
intent leading to the perpetration of the
same criminal purpose or aim.
Based upon the ground that there is a new
commission of the same offense in the
jurisdiction where he is found.
In such a case, the complaint should allege
that the offense was committed within the
jurisdiction of the court and not at the
place where it was originally committed.

Territorial jurisdiction, how determined:

determined by the allegations in the

information as to the situs of the crime and
this determines, in the first instance,
whether said court has jurisdiction to try
the case.
Thus, even if the court subsequently
dismisses the action upon proof that the
offense was committed outside its territory,
all proceedings prior thereto are valid.

Exceptions to territorial principle:

a. Where the offense was committed under the
exceptional circumstances provided for in
Art. 2 of the RPC.
- commit an offense while on a Philippine
ship or airship
- forge or counterfeit any coin or currency
note of the Phil Islands or obligations and
securities issued by the govt
- liable for acts connected with the
introduction into these islands of the
obligations and securities mentioned in the
preceding number
- while being public officers or employees,
commit an offense in the exercise of their
functions
- commit any of the crimes against national
security and the law of nations
all of these cases are triable in the
Philippine courts notwithstanding the fact
that it was committed outside of the Phil.
b. In cases of piracy hostes humani generic
c. Where an offense is committed on a
railroad train, in an aircraft, or any other
public or private vehicle in the course of its
trip- where it passed during such trip,
departure and arrival.

d. Where an offense is committed on board a

vessel in the course of its voyagefirst port
of entry or of any municipality or territory
thru which the vessel passed during such
voyage
e. In those cases where the SC, in the interest
of truth and impartial justice, transfers the
place of trial from one place to another.
One of these incidental and inherent
powers of the courts is that of transferring
the trial of cases from one court to another
of equal rank in a neighboring site,
whenever the imperatives of securing a fair
and impartial trial, or of preventing a
miscarriage of justice so demand. the
power to transfer venue or palce of trial is
expressly granted by the 1987 Consit to the
SC, ART. VIII, Sec 5 (4), which provides that
the Supreme Court has the power to order
a change of venue or place of trial to avoid a
miscarriage of justice.
f. In case of written defamation: Libel under
RA 4363:
- criminal and civil actions for damages shall
be filed simultaneously or separately with
the CFI of the province or city where the
libelous article is printed and first
published or where any of the offended
parties actually resides at the time of the
commission of the offense.
- Where one of the offended parties is a
public officer whose office is in the City of
Manila at the time of the commission of the
offense, the action shall be filed in the CFI
of the City of Manila or of the city or
province where the libelous article is
printed and first published, and in such
case the public officer does not hold office
in the City of Manila, the action shall be
filed in the CGI of the province or city where
he held office at the commission of the
offense or where the libelous article is
printed and first published and
- in case one of the offended parties is a
private individual, the action shall be filed
in the CFI of the province where he actually
resides at the time of the commission of the
offense of where the libelous matter is
printed and first published.
- The civil action shall be filed in the same
court where the crim action is filed and vice
versa.

Page 4
That the court where the criminal or civil
action for damages is first filed shall acquire
jurisdiction to the exclusion of other courts.
Preliminary investigation of criminal actions
for written defamations as provided in this
chapter shall be conducted by the
provincial or city fiscal of the province or
city, or by the municipal court of the city or
capital of the province where such actions
may be instituted in accordance with the
provisions of this article.

Jurisdiction over the person of accused:

is acquired either upon his:
1. apprehension with or without warrant
2. his voluntary submission to the jurisdiction
of the court which may be effected by:
- posting bail or
- by filing a motion to quash or
- by appearing at the arraignment or
- entering trial
the voluntary appearance of the accused,
through counsel, at the pre-suspension
hearing held in connection with an antigraft charge, is considered to be submission
to the jurisdiction of the court over his
person, even if no warrant has been issued
for his arrest.
Jurisdiction over the person of the accused
my be waived (as opposed to subject
matter).
If he fails to make a seasonable objection
thereto, he is deemed to have waived it.
He must go to the court for that purpose
only, if he raises other questions, he waives
the objection.
Criminal jurisdiction, how determined:

jurisdiction is determined by the fine and

imprisonment prescribed by law.
Once jurisdiction is acquired by the court
in which the information is filed, it is there
retained, regardless of whether the evidence
proves a lesser offense than that charged in
the
information
or
the
subsequent
happening of events, although of a
character which would have prevented
jurisdiction from attaching in the first
instance.

Definition and apportionment of jurisdiction,

legislative function:

extent of jurisdiction is ascertained

principally from two sources: a. conferred
by express or implied provisions of a statue
b. Constitution

Criminal Jurisdictions of courts:

a. Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal
Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial
Courts
- exclusive original jurisdiction over all
violations of city or municipal ordinances
committed within their respective territorial
jurisdiction
- exclusive original jurisdiction over all
offenses punishable with imprisonment of
not exceeding 6 years IRRESPECTIVE of the
amount of fine, and regardless of other
imposable accessory or other penalties,
including the civil liability arising from
such offenses or predicated thereon,
irrespective of kind, nature, value or
amount thereof.
- Offense involving damage to property
through criminal negligence, they shall
have exclusive original jurisdiction thereof.
However, under RA 7691, fine no longer a
factor to determine jurisdiction because of
the phrase that the lower court shall have
exclusive original jurisdiction over all
offenses punishable with imprisonment not
exceeding 6 years irrespective of the
amount of fine, regardless of all other
impossible accessory or other penalties.
In seduction by the insertion of the
phrase regardless of other impossible
accessory or other penalties including the
civil liability arising from such offenses or
predicated thereon, the offense of simple
seduction is now within the exclusive
original jurisdiction or metropolitan trial
courts,
municipal
trial
courts
and
municipal circuit trial courts.
other impossible accessory or other
penalties in the present law, difficulties
arising from the question of whether or not
the penalty for habitual delinquency should

Page 5
be considered in the determination of
jurisdiction, passed away into legal history.
Under PD 1606 amended by RA 8249:
Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial
Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts
now have jurisdiction over cases involving
government officials and employees where
the imposable penalty is not more than 6
years and the officers charged do not fall
under
the
jurisdiction
of
the
Sandiganbayan, meaning those below
salary grade of 27 and not among those
enumerated in Section 4, PD 1606.
No warrant of arrest shall be issued by the
Judge in connection with any criminal
complaint filed with him for preliminary
investigation, unless an examination in
writing and under oath or affirmation of the
complainant and his witnesses, he finds
that a probable cause exists. Any warrant
of arrest issued may be served anywhere in
the Phil.

b. Regional Trial Courts: All criminal cases

not within the exclusive original jurisdiction
of any court, tribunal or body. Penalty
higher than 6 years.
Includes government officers and employees
wherein the accused is not one of those
falling under the jurisdiction of the
Sandiganbayan, meaning to say, that he is
below salary grade 27 and not among
those enumerated in Sec. 4, PD 1606 as
amended.
Criminal
cases,
concurrent
original
jurisdiction over the subject matter may
now be said to exist only between the
Supreme Court and Regional Trial Court in
cases
affecting
ambassadors,
public
ministers, and consuls.
In the matter of territorial jurisdiction,
concurrent jurisdiction between courts of
equal rank may result in continuing crimes;
crimes committed on a railroad train,
aircraft or in any public or private vehicle
while in the course of its trip, crimes
committed on board a vessel in the course
of its voyage; other crimes committed
outside of the Phil but punishable therein
under Article 2 of the RPC and written
defamation.

On the appellate level, RTC exercise

appellate jurisdiction over all cases decided
by MetroTC, MuniTC, and MCTC, in their
respective territorial jurisdiction.

c. Family
Courts:
exclusive
original
jurisdictions to hear and decide the
following cases:
-

Criminal cases where one or more of the

accused is below 18 but not less than 9 OR
when one or more of the victims is a minor
at the time of the commission of the
offense.
Cases against minors cognizable under the
Dangerous Drugs Act
Violation of RA 7610 Special Protection of
Children Against Child Abuse, Exploitation
and Discrimination Act
Cases of domestic violence
Children all forms of abuse, neglect,
cruelty,
exploitation,
violence
and
discrimantion.

d. Court of Appeals
Exercises:
1. original jurisdiction to issue writs of
mandamus, prohibition, certiorari, habeas
corpus, and quo warranto, and auxiliary
writs or processes, whether or not in aid of
its appellate jurisdiction
2. exclusive original jurisdiction over the
annulment of judgments of Regional Trial
Courts
3. exclusive appellate jurisdiction over all final
judgments, decisions, resolutions, orders,
or awards of Regional Trial Courts and
quasi-judicial agencies, instrumentalities,
boards, or commissions, EXCEPT those
falling within the appellate jurisdiction of
the SC in accordance with the Consti
( automatic review in capital punishment
cases * but there is a case where the SC
gave power to IAC).
The CA shall have the power to receive
evidence and perform any and all acts
necessary to resolve factual issues raised in
a) cases falling within its original
jurisdiction such as actions for annulment
of judgments of regional trial court provided
in number 2 above b) cases falling within

Page 6
its appellate jurisdiction wherein a motion
for new trial based only on the ground of
newly covered evidence granted by it.
e. Sandiganbayan

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

the 1973 Constitution provided for, but did

not create a special court, the SB, with
jurisdiction over criminal and civil cases
involving graft and corrupt practices and
such other offenses committed by public
officers and employees, including those in
GOCC in relation to their office as may be
determined by law.
Exclusive jurisdiction over:
Violation of RA 3019 (Anti-Graft and
Corrupt Practices Act, RA 1379 and
Chapter II, Section 2, Title VII, Book II of
the RPC, where one or more of the accused
are officials occupying the ff position in the
govt whether permanent, acting or interim
capacity at the time of the commission of
the offense:
Officials of the executive branch, grade 27
or higher (see list on page 29)
Members of the Congress
Members of the judiciary
Chairmen
and
members
of
the
Constitutional Commission
All other national and local officials
classified as salary grade 27 and higher
Other offenses or felonies whether simple or
complexed with other crimes committed by
the public officials and employees in
relation to their office
Civil and criminal cases filed pursuant to
and in connection with EO No. 1, 2, 14,
and 14-A (law which created the PCGG).
When not mentioned, the jurisdiction is in
the RTC, METTC, MUNTC, MCTC as
provided by BP 129.
The SB shall exercise exclusive appellate
jurisdiction
over
final
judgments,
resolutions or orders or regional trial courts
whether in the exercise of their own original
jurisdiction or of their appellate jurisdiction
as herein provided.
The SB shall exercise exclusive orig
jurisdiction over petitions for the issuance
of the writs of mandamus, prohibition,
certiorari, habeas corpus, injunction and

other ancillary writs and processes in aid of

its appellate jurisdiction and over petitions
of similar nature, including quo warranto,
arising or that may arise in cases field
which may be filed under the PCGG.
In case private individuals are charged as
co-principals, accomplices, or accessories
with the public officers or employees, they
shall be tried jointly with said public
officers and employees in the proper courts
which shall exercise exclusive jurisdiction
over them.
The criminal action and the corresponding
civil action for the recovery of civil liability
shall at all times be simultaneously
instituted with, and jointly determined in,
the same proceeding by the SB or the
appropriate courts, the filing of the criminal
action being deemed to necessarily carry
with it the filing of the civil action, and no
right to reserve the filing of such civil action
separately from the criminal action shall be
recognized.
When the criminal case was filed at the SB,
and the civil action was filed separately but
has not reached judgment yet, it shall be
transferred to the SB or the appropriate
court fro the consolidation and joint
determination
with
crim
action,
OTHERWISE, separate civil action shall be
deemed abandoned.

When offense considered committed in relation

to office:

offense was committed in relation to the

office must be alleged in the information
taking advantage of their respective position
vs. offenses committed in relation to the
office it must be the latter and not the
former bec if the former is considered, it
shall only be an aggravating circumstance
and not as one that qualifies the crime.

What a public office is:

Page 7
opposed to a lucrative office or an office or
profit.
f.

Supreme Court

Sec. 5, Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution

Sec 17 of the Judiciary Act of 1948

g. Katarungang Pambarangay

1. Authority of the Lupon: parties actually

residing in the same city or municipality for
amicable settlement of ALL disputes.
EXCEPT:
a. One party is the govt or any subdivision or
instrumentality thereof
b. One party is a public officer or employee
and the dispute relates to the performance
of his official functions
c. Offenses punishable by imprisonment of 1
year or a fine exceeding P5,000.
d. Offenses where there is no private offended
party
e. The dispute involves real properties located
in different cities or municipalities unless
the parties thereto agree to submit their
differences to amicable settlement by an
appropriate Lupon.
f. Dispute involving parties who actually
reside in barangays of different cities or
municipalities, except where such barangay
units adjoin each other and the parties
thereto agree to submit their differences to
amicable settlement by an appropriate
lupon
g. Such other classes of disputes which the
President may determine in the interest of
justice or upon the recommendation of the
Secretary of Justice.

Public office: one created by law to

discharge a sovereign function and the
salarty is a mere incident and forms no
part of it. If there is no salary or fee
annexed, it is a naked of honorary office as

Under
the
LGC
of
1991, Lupong
Tagapamayapa shall be composed of:
Punong Barangay as Chairman and 10 to
20 members

Sc held that the law does not make

distinction whatsoever with respect to the
classes of civil disputes that should be
compromised at the barangay level

2. Venue of Settlement

a. Disputes bet persons actually residing in

the same barangay
b. Those involving actual residents of different
barangays within the same city or
municipality
barangay
where
the
respondent or any of the respondents
actually resides, at the election of the
complainant
c. Disputes involving real property or any
interest therein shall be brought in the
barangay where the real property or the
larger portion thereof is situated
d. Those arising at the workplace where the
contending parties are employed or at the
institution where such parties are enrolled
for study shall be brought where such
workplace or institution is located.

Objection to venue: shall be raised in the

mediation proceedings before the punong
barangay; otherwise, the same shall be
deemed waived.

3. Confrontation between the parties before

the Lupon a pre-condition before filing of
case; exceptions.
- if its within the jurisdiction of the Lupon, it
shall not be filed or instituted directly in
court or any other government office for
adjudication unless there has been a
confrontation between the parties before
the lupon chairman or the pangkat, and
that no conciliation or settlement has been
reached as certified by the lupon secretary
or pangkat secretary as attested to by the
lupon chairman or pangkat chairman or
unless settlement has been repudiated by
the parties thereto.
Instances where the parties may go directly
to the court:
- accused is under detention
- person has been deprived of personal
liberty
calling
for
habeas
corpus
proceedings
- actions are coupled with provisional
remedies such as a) preliminary injunction
b) attachment c) delivery of personal
property,
d)
support
pendente
lite
e)**replevin
- where actions may be barred by the statute
of limitations (sec. 412(b))

Page 8
4. Confrontation or conciliation process
not jurisdictional but only a condition
precedent

Conciliation process at the barangay level is

a condition precedent for the filing of action
in those instances where said law applies,
and that the failure to avail of the
conciliation process does not warrant
jurisdictional objections for it merely
renders the complaint vulnerable to a
timely motion to dismiss.
Failure to observe the conciliation process
is not jurisdictional.
Non-compliance
with
that
condition
precedent could affect the sufficiency of
plaintiffs cause of action and make his
complaint vulnerable to dismissal on the
ground of lack of cause of action or
prematurity. The condition is analogous to
the failure of the party to exhaust
administrative remedies, or lack or earnest
efforts to compromise suits between close
members of the family, lacking which the
case can be dismissed.

Page 9